Appeal on the basis that you never received the PCN given that it was taken off the vehicle by persons unknown. Since that is a criminal act you are a victim of crime since the first you knew of the charge was when the NTO was served for a higher penalty.This is unfair since you never had the opportunity to settle the charge at the discount amount. In the circumstances ask that the Council exercise its discretion and re-offer the discount.

Your challenge must state that you were legally parked in this location before any warning signs or suspension sign were erected. The Council should refer to their suspension log and it will be seen that the VRM of your vehicle was evident and the vehicle was in situ prior to any signage being put up. Therefore the PCN should be cancelled since it is not enforceable.

I appreciate what others have said about the Order but the simple fact remains, regardless of weight or number of passengers, that the Council have made provision for longer vehicles. It would therefore be perverse to single out the OP's vehicle for a different application of this exemption. Indeed I would argue that the Council would be unfair and prejudicial if it continued enforcement in the circumstances.

That said, I would still like to see some photos of how the vehicle was parked vis a vis the bay markings.

Sometimes Councils allow long vehicles to park provided they buy a ticket for two bays. Doesn't apply in this case if the CP was free that day but they might be held to account if that sort of clause is in the Order.

That slip road is still blocked off --- as seen in the video. So the Council expects you to go down that road because that is what the signage says even though it is impossible to do so. The contravention is "Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign (Must pass to the left). This is Wednesbury Unreasonableness in full and farcical flow if they say you must proceed down that road but they have blocked it off.

Footway parking, the definition of road and what comprises public land

2170551476

Dr. Osment appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the prohibition on parking a vehicle “in or on any urban road in Greater London … so that one or more of its wheels is resting on—

(a) any footway;

(b) any land (not being a footway) which is situated between two carriageways in any such road; or

Dr. Osment helpfully produced a skeleton argument. Although I rejected summarily most of the grounds, an argument raised at point 2 had real merit and warranted consideration. At point 2 he argued: “The photos clearly show that I was on a void space further on and well clear of the footway.” This was foreshadowed in his representations to the Enforcement Authority (EA), which included the following: “I was not on a footpath. I was on an area of hardstanding forming no other purpose, other than suitable for parking.” I am afraid I disagree with the second point raised there; the area on which, the photographs show, the vehicle was parked was plainly not designed, or suitable, for parking. Whether it forms part of a road, however, is a different matter. Dr. Osment argues he was not parked in or on a road at all. Rather, he says, his vehicle was parked wholly on an area of land that does not comprise part of the road. It is the EA’s case that the vehicle was parked (at least partially) on the footway of North Street and was thus in or on a road with one or more wheels on the footway.

I have not been provided with any map showing the parameters of North Street, or the road which is parallel to it. I have, however, studied the photographs in some detail. There is a footway, which I accept is part of North Street. There is a parallel road, which has parking spaces next to it. In between those two roads is a space which, to my mind, is a pleasant open space for people to enjoy, paved differently from the footway, containing trees and benches. Bearing in mind the reasoning in Clark v. General Accident [1998] 1 WLR 1647 I find that it is a place to which the public have access, but not a road. In particular, it is not an area of the road that is between two carriageways; the other road is separate and is not merely a carriageway of North Street.

I turn then to whether Dr. Osment’s vehicle was parked on the road, namely North Street, or the area that is not a road. I have looked at the photographic evidence provided. It is clear to me that no wheels of Dr. Osment’s vehicle were resting on the footway, which is paved distinctly. Rather, his vehicle was wholly within that area that I have deemed on the evidence to be public land but not a road.

It follows from that that I am not satisfied that the vehicle was parked on a road. Section 15(1) is not engaged and the contravention did not occur.

Dr. Osment was aggrieved that the EA’s rejection of his representations contained an allegation that he had caused an obstruction; perhaps it might have been better not to mention this given it is not a necessary element of the contravention (or offence, as it used to be). However, the allegation was not wholly unreasonable given that, as I find, Dr. Osment should not have parked on that area of public land. Although Dr. Osment applied, partly for that reason, for his costs, I am not satisfied that the EA has conducted this appeal is such a way as to warrant an order for costs.----------------------------------------------------------

OP---pay it at the discount-- there is not a hope in hell of you getting this overturned at adjudication.

We are well aware of this "honey trap" and the only defence is that you passed the give way markings before any oncoming vehicle turned the corner up ahead. You however are level with that people carrier and have not given way to it.

This case is interesting from the point of view of members comments regarding the 10 minute rule. Where differing interpretations have been offered and there is still no consensus the usual direction is that the appeal on that ground goes forward. Let the Council or the adjudicator rule on it.

We should not deny an appellant a chance to put forward a ground which might or might not fly; that is not our raison d'être.

What that means is that the Council's off street order should have a map which delineates the parking place. If you were not in that area then the contravention cannot apply.

Most off street orders specify that the vehicle must be wholly within a bay. So even if you were miles away from a bay or had no intention of parking in a bay they can use this "default" to nab you.

I would write a cheeky letter to that wind tunnel of a civic centre and say that you never received the PCN since someone unknown removed it. Therefore as a victim of a criminal act you had no chance to settle at the discount before the NTO arrived. Ergo this is unfair and prejudicial so you request that the Council use their discretion and re-offer the discount.

Yes, but we are after the amendment which may or may not be covered by Reg 20. Notwithstanding that, the Council seems to have carte blanche with Notices of Variation (Reg 25) where publication in the Gazette does not apply.

Might as well work up an appeal before the OFR. We've seen lots of cases on two bus lane charges within minutes so we have to line them up to support your case---probably grounds of "continuous contravention".